How George Will Changes the Afghanistan Debate

If there was any doubt that George Will--a twice-weekly print columnist
in an era of 2-hour debates--could shake up the blogosphere, this
morning's mortar-shell of a column should set it to rest. (Read the Wire's early coverage of conservative counterattack here.) Nearly every
major political outlet felt compelled to respond to his thesis that
American efforts at nation-building in Afghanistan are doomed to fail.

How
has he changed the debate? Will hardened battle lines on the right, rousing neo-conservatives to assert the case for doubling down on counter-insurgency, citing the success of the Iraq surge. On the left, Will has inspired--or shamed--some critics into elevating their calls for withdrawal. But the greatest number of pundits fall short of either denouncing or endorsing Will, instead taking this as an occasion to weigh the options, demanding a reassessment of America's eight-year war.

Here are the major themes of the fallout:

Keep Fighting

Not Another Vietnam, says James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation at Politico. "The last thing we need is to repeat the real mistakes
we made in Vietnam. Then we lost a winnable war when the left and the
right lost heart."

A Moral Obligation, says Will
at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen. Referring back to an earlier
conservative critique of the war in Afghanistan, he argues that "Given our history of flooding the country with arms, equipment and
military training, I'm inclined to believe that the United States does
have a moral obligation to help restore order in Afghanistan."

One Year to Build the Opium Economy, says Justin Gardner in Donklephant. "If we allow Afghans to grow opium legally (as they do in India and Turkey)
and sell it to pharmaceutical companies, we can regulate it and they
can pull themselves out of the crushing poverty that is the backdrop
for sympathetic views of the Taliban. If not, we should just pack up and go."

Hold and Build, urges Anthony Cordesman in the Washington Post. He outlines the flaws in Obama's current strategy and says that building up civic institutions is the only way forward. "We have a reasonable chance of victory if we properly outfit and
empower our new team in Afghanistan; we face certain defeat if we do
not."

Exiting Now's a Fool's Errand, says Mark Levin at National Review. Levin asks of Will and others who urge departure, "What's the strategy after we leave?" Instead, he says the problem is not too much commitment to Afghanistan, but rather "that Obama is cutting the defense budget, he is
undermining our intelligence system, and he is pulling troops from Iraq
without reconsidering the pace of that action; and now some encourage
him to pull out of Afghanistan because the administration lacks a
policy there?"

End the War

Karzai Can't Help, says Douglas Farah at Counterterrorism Blog. "A foreign
fighting force cannot win unless a host government, viewed as
legitimate by its people, is fighting the war as well. That is not the
case in Afghanistan."

Don't Become an LBJ, warns Jon Taplin
at TPM Cafe, hitting on an allusion echoed elsewhere. "Have we
forgotten how Lyndon Johnson's obsession with Vietnam poisoned the
legacy of his domestic accomplishments? This is where Obama has to make
his bones. Get out of Afghanistan."

Remote Warfare the Only Way, says Alexander Muse at Conservative Dallas, saying that the only logical path is to convert the war operation over to drones. " To be honest, it is the ONLY logical option for us at this point."

Obama's Vietnam, says Gene Healy at the Cato Institute. "Obama
has made Afghanistan a 'liberal war;' ironically enough, it may also be
a war from which only liberals can disentangle us."

Weigh the Options

More Time Needed, argues Joe Klein at Time. "We have to see what, if anything, emerges from the Afghan election. We
have to see what, if any, impact the augmented U.S. troops--who are
still arriving--have on the fight. We have to see what, if any, impact
the augmented non-military component--the increased aid, the additional
aid workers and economic development specialists--have on Afghanistan."

Let the Experts Debate, says Hugh Hewitt at Townhall. "But whether or not to remain in the battle in Afghanistan is a subject
that has an all too direct connection to 9/11 and the potential for
future mass attacks on the homeland. Allowing the Taliban to
re-establish a sovereign state with the ability to welcome and
encourage suicide jihadists is not a subject on which I trust Mr.
Will's judgment."

Analyze the Costs and Benefits, says Robert Stein
at Connecting the Dots. "If Barack Obama is to avoid becoming another
LBJ, it's time for a hard-headed reassessment of the risks and rewards
of sending more troops to die in a country that has just shown it can't
have an honest popular election and can't keep enough of a lid on
corruption to enlist its own people against Taliban jihadists."

Obama's Fork in the Road, says Steven C. Day at Buzzflash. "Obama needs to
figure a way out this mess and soon or everything else he hopes to
accomplish will turn to grief. Yes, it's damn convenient for
someone such as Will to reach this conclusion only now, when "the other
side" is in office. But the truth is still the truth."

Three Questions, says Taki
at the Reality Based Community. First, he asks, could Will's
robot-driven strategy work? Second, to ensure flyovers, can the U.S.
rely on "a large presence in the participatory democracy of Uzbekistan." And before withdrawing, we should say that "the chance of Al Qaeda reconstitution" is still "a better deal than
getting caught in quagmire."

Damned If We Do, warns James Poulos in the New Atlanticist. "If we're prepared to face up to our fears and face down our myths in
Afghanistan, the uncomfortable possibility must be considered that we
can afford neither to double down nor to cut our losses.
Rather than cause for despair, this should be an occasion for truly creative policy thinking."

Two Choices, says Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. Drum argues that there are two scenarios the military could outline if we withdraw. One, the Taliban could take over completely. Two, the central government could wage an effective, if indecisive civil war, while the U.S. focuses on eliminating al Qaeda. He suggest "We know how to protect a military
base from an insurgent force like the Taliban, and fighting from there
would be a helluva lot easier than trying to do it from offshore," as Will proposed.

The Next President May Be Better, says Matt Lewis at Townhall. "Considering Abdullah would likely be an improvement over Karzai, even
if one agrees with Will about 'nation building,' the prudent writer
might have at least postponed his declaration of failure until after
the fate of Karzai was determined."

Everyone has someone on their holiday shopping list who’s impossible to buy for. For the second year in a row, we asked Atlantic readers to describe their someone, and brainstormed a few perfect gift ideas for them.